Children and naturea quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
november 2011
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Copyright
Greater London Authority November 2011
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall, The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA
www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458
Cover photo © WWT/photo by Debs Pinniger
3
Children and naturea quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
november 2011
a report for the london sustainable development Commission by tim gill
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
1 introduCtion 5
2 Key findings 7
3 what Can a review liKe this tell us? 9
4 review methodology 13
appendiCes 27 References for the 61 studies analysed 28 Endnotes 32
Contents
5
Chapter one
introduCtion
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
This report sets out the findings of a review into the evidential support for claims about the benefits for children of experiences with nature. The review was part of a project exploring children’s relationship with nature, commissioned by the London Sustainable Development Commission. The final report for the project was published separately as Sowing the Seeds: Reconnecting London’s children with nature.
Some strong claims have been made about the importance of children spending time in nature. Natural environments are said to have restorative qualities that help in relaxing and coping with everyday stress. They are claimed to promote adaptive processes in child development (for instance motor fitness, physical competence and self-confidence). They are said to support learning and education. Finally, it is claimed that spending time in green outdoor environments as a child nurtures lifelong positive attitudes about nature and the wider environment1
These claims are examined in detail, with the aim of producing a transparent, authoritative assessment of the evidence base for these claims that should be of value to the as-yet unconvinced. The literature review was also designed to shape recommendations for action.
7
Chapter two
Key findings
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Taken as a whole, the studies confirm that spending time in nature is part of a ‘balanced diet’ of childhood experiences that promote children’s healthy development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes and values. The findings are summarised in Table 1 below.
The evidence is strongest for claims about health, both physical and mental. In the case of mental health, emotional regulation and motor development, the evidence base includes a small number of more robust, cause-and-effect studies.
There is also good evidence of a link between time spent in natural settings as a child, and positive views about nature as an adult. The evidence base for these benefits covers a comparatively broad range of children from different countries and backgrounds. However, not all children are equally keen on nature
and the outdoors. Studies have found that a lack of regular positive experiences in nature is associated with the development of fear, discomfort and dislike of the environment2.
A more modest body of evidence – from a diverse mix of studies - points to improvements in the quality of children’s outdoor play, in their self-confidence, language/communication and psychosocial health.
One further finding emerged from the literature review, which points to the value of more playful engagement styles such as free play, exploration, leisure and child-initiated learning. Across the pool of studies analysed, these styles were associated with both health benefits and positive environmental attitudes. However, less playful styles such as school gardening projects and field trips were mainly associated with educational benefits.
Table 1: Overall conclusions from the literature review
Claims that are well supported
• Spending time in natural environments as a child is associated with adult pro-environment attitudes and feelings of being connected with the natural world, and is also associated with a stronger sense of place.
• Living near to green spaces is associated with greater physical activity.
• Spending time in nearby nature leads to improvements in mental health and emotional regulation, both for specific groups of children (such as those with ADHD) and for children as a whole.
• Children who take part in school gardening projects improve in scientific learning more than those who do not, and have healthier eating habits.
• Experience of green environments is associated with greater environmental knowledge.
• Play in natural environments leads to improvements in motor fitness for pre-school children.
Claims that have some good support
• Forest school and school gardening projects are associated with improved social skills; in addition, forest school leads to improved self-control and school gardening projects lead to increased self-awareness.
Claims with some support
• Nearby nature is associated with more outdoor play and hence improved well-being.
• Forest school is associated with improved self-confidence and language and communication.
• Conservation activities in school grounds and nearby open spaces are associated with improved psychosocial health.
9
Chapter three
what Can a review liKe this tell us?
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Academics, advocates and practitioners have discussed the topic of children’s engagement with nature extensively, and gaining an overview of current knowledge is difficult. What is more, as with many public policy arenas, there are variations in what different people regard as sound evidence. This review approaches the task by asking the question: what do the more reliable, empirical studies tell us?
The topic of children’s engagement with nature has been surveyed in different ways by researchers with different theoretical starting points, interests and approaches. This review takes the common-sense position that the topic is amenable to empirical study and that an overview can be sketched out. It also assumes that there is value in bringing together material from different disciplines, even though they may have differing views on what counts as good evidence.
Researching the influences of nature on children is not easy. There are ethical and methodological challenges, and we only have a partial picture. Indeed there are debates (not pursued further here) about the degree to which it is possible to be impartial or objective on such topics.
Inevitably, an empirical focus means missing out on some of the more theoretical and descriptive material available. It means that some of the qualitative, subjective, even spiritual features of our relationship with nature – its texture and fabric as part of people’s inner lives – can be underemphasised or omitted.
Moreover, care is needed when looking at the empirical evidence. The studies surveyed here explore the experiences of some very diverse groups of children (from different countries,
of a range of ages, and also from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds). What studies count as ‘nature’ (or a ‘natural environment’) also varies widely, as does the style of children’s engagement with those environments. The environments studied include urban green public spaces, school grounds, woodlands and private gardens. In some studies children are playing freely, while in others their engagement is facilitated by adults, sometimes through highly structured programs. It cannot be assumed that outcomes with one group of children, from experiences in one type of environment, or from one style of engagement, will transfer to other groups, environments or engagement styles.
While the body of evidence and authoritative opinion is growing, coverage is still patchy. For example, some writers argue that children build their resilience – their ability to bounce back from the ups and downs of life – when they play in natural environments. But such benefits are hard to study empirically, because of the ethical and methodological challenges.
Gathering robust evidence of cause-and-effect is particularly challenging. To take one example from the findings discussed here: people who feel close to nature as adults, or have a strong commitment to environmentalism, tend to have spent time in childhood in natural places - unlike people who feel less concerned about nature. What might explain this link? It could be that early experiences influenced or caused the later attitudes. Or it could be that some people are from an early age more inclined than others towards both natural environments and environmentalism. Cross-sectional studies - those that only gather data or information at a single point in time - can show a link between experiences and outcomes, but they cannot show cause and effect.
11
Longitudinal studies – ones that track children over time – can give more information about the potential outcomes of different experiences, since they can provide a baseline. But they still leave open the possibility that the outcomes are not caused by the experiences, but by other factors – perhaps the social background, characteristics or personalities of the children. To be more confident that the differences are caused by the experiences, intervention studies are needed that compare groups of children in ways that control for such factors as their backgrounds or personal characteristics. The strongest evidence is gained from studies where children are assigned randomly to different interventions, in randomised controlled trials. While such studies are common for clinical and other health interventions, there are ethical, financial and practical barriers to carrying them out in other disciplines. Some of the studies included in this review used more robust before-and-after methodologies. But most were cross-sectional.
As the field evolves, it is likely that the depth and robustness of the evidence base will grow. It is not unusual for exploration of a research topic to begin with qualitative or correlational/cross-sectional research, as a way of clarifying the territory and shaping later, more specific research questions that are more amenable to more robust study designs.
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
© WWT
13
Chapter four
review methodology
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
A thorough literature review was carried out, using a methodology similar to that used by the civil service3. This literature review is best described as ‘quasi-systematic’. It conducted as exhaustive a search as possible for relevant studies, given the time and resource limitations available. It also categorised and evaluated each of the studies found in a consistent way, according to clearly stated criteria.
The topic of children and nature has been reviewed frequently in recent years; 15 published literature reviews were found as part of this review (see Table 2 below). This review differs from almost all the other reviews identified, since it includes explicit and transparent assessments of study quality alongside clear inclusion criteria (the exception is Ward Thompson et al 2006, which focused on older children). Reviews that do not state their inclusion criteria are open to criticism that their assessment is partial or biased (for instance, they may have ignored negative or inconclusive studies). Similarly, reviews that make no attempt to assess study quality, or that fail to describe how they do this, may not adequately reflect the weight of evidence. Hence this review marks a step forward in our understanding of the evidence base.
This review was undertaken in 3 stages. In stage 1, a search was carried out for relevant primary empirical studies with sound methodologies. In stage 2, the studies selected (61 in total) were analysed to pull out the benefits that were identified. This analysis also gathered information on the study quality, the type/s of environment and style/s of engagement under study, and the characteristics of the children/adults that were studied. In stage 3 the evidence for each category of benefit was pulled together to give an assessment that reflects the quality and number of relevant studies. Each stage is described in more detail below.
Stage 1: Search for relevant studiesThe search for relevant studies began with a trawl (carried out in January and February 2011) through 32 relevant literature reviews, around half of which of which focused on children. These reviews were all undertaken between 2003 and 2010. Some of these reviews were known to the reviewer, while others came to light either as citations, or as a result of contacting one of a number of experts. The reviews are listed in Tables 2 and 3, the experts are listed in Table 4, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria are set out in Table 5 below. Tables 2 and 3 also state the referring source for each review, and state whether or not the review gave information about the methodological quality of the primary studies cited. Where this information was given, it was used in stage 2 – see below for more details.
15
Table 2: Relevant literature reviews that focus on children
Reference Studies assessed? Referring source (see Table 4)
Charles C and Senauer A (2010) Health benefits to children from contact with the outdoors & nature. Children & Nature Network
No Known to reviewer
Charles C and Senauer A (2010) Children’s contact with the outdoors and nature: a focus on educators and educational settings. Children & Nature Network
No Known to reviewer
Chawla L and Cushing D (2007). ‘Education for strategic environmental behavior’, Environmental Education Research v13 n4 p437-452.
No Known to reviewer
Huby M and Bradshaw J (2006) A Review of the Environmental Dimension of Children and Young People’s Well-being. A report for the Sustainable Development Commission
No Jake Reynolds
Lester S and Maudsley M (2006). Play, Naturally: A review of children’s natural play. Play England.
No Known to reviewer
Lovell R, O’Brien L and Owen R (2010) Review of the research evidence in relation to the role of trees and woods in formal education and learning. Forestry Commission.
No Rebecca Lovell
Malone K (2008) Every Experience Matters: An evidence based research report on the role of learning outside the classroom for children’s whole development from birth to eighteen years. Farming & Countryside Education.
No Known to reviewer
Muñoz S (2009) Children in the Outdoors: A literature review. Sustainable Development Research Centre.
No Marcus Sangster
New Economics Foundation (2006) Review of the environmental dimension of children and young people’s well-being. A report for the Sustainable Development Commission.
No Jake Reynolds
Parsons G (2007) Heading Out: Exploring the impact of outdoor experiences on young children. Learning through Landscapes.
No Rebecca Lovell
Pretty J, Angus C et al (2009) Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways. University of Essex.
No Liz O’Brien
Raffan J, Robertson C et al (2000) Nature Nurtures: Investigating the potential of school grounds. Evergreen, Canada.
No Known to reviewer
Rickinson M, Dillon J et al (2004) A review of research on outdoor learning. National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London.
No Known to reviewer
Sustainable Development Commission (2010) Improving Young People’s Lives: The role of the environment in building resilience, responsibility and employment chances. Sustainable Development Commission.
No Jake Reynolds
Ward Thompson C, Travlou P and Roe J (2006) Free-Range Teenagers: The Role of Wild Adventure Space in Young People’s Lives. OPENspace (Published in 2010 by Natural England).
Yes Known to reviewer
Woolley H, Pattacini L and Somerset Ward A (2009) Children and the natural environment: Experiences, influences and interventions. Sheffield University.
No Helen Woolley
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Table 3: Relevant literature reviews that do not solely focus on children
Reference Studies assessed? Referring source (see Table 4)
Bell S, Hamilton V et al (2008) Greenspace and quality of life: a critical literature review. Research Report by OPENspace for Greenspace Scotland.
Yes Catharine Ward Thompson
Bird W (2004) Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity Increase Levels of Physical Activity? Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
No CPIS
Bird W. (2007) Natural thinking. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
No CPIS
Bowler D, Knight T and Pullin A (2009) The value of contact with nature for health promotion: how the evidence has been reviewed. Centre for Evidence Based Conservation, School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University.
Yes (the paper is a review of reviews)
Marcus Sangster
Bowler D, Buyung-Ali L et al (2010) The importance of nature for health: is there a specific benefit of contact with green space? Centre for Evidence Based Conservation: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR40.html
Yes Natural England
Bowler D, Buyung-Ali L et al (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10:456.
Yes Natural England
Croucher K, Myers L and Bretherton J (2007) The links between greenspace and health: a critical literature review. Prepared for Greenspace Scotland; 2007. [Croucher et al 2007a]
Yes Bowler et al 2009
Croucher, K., Myers, L. et al. (2007) Physical Characteristics of Urban Neighbourhoods and Health: Critical Literature Review. Glasgow Centre for Population Health. [Croucher et al 2007b]
Yes Croucher et al 2007a
Davies P (2007) Natural Heritage: a pathway to health. Prepared for Countryside Commission for Wales
Yes Bowler et al 2009
Faculty of Public Health (2010) Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service Uses Green Space To Improve Wellbeing An action report. Faculty of Public Health in association with Natural England.
No Jake Reynolds
Foster C, Hillsdon M, Jones A, Panter J (2006) Assessing the relationship between the quality of urban green space and physical activity. Prepared for CABE space
Yes Bowler et al 2009
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004) Nature and Health: The influence of nature on social, psychological and physical well-being.
No Marcus Sangster
NICE (2006) Physical activity and the environment: Review 3: Natural Environment. NICE Public Collaborating Centre - Physical Activity.
Yes Bowler et al 2009
Newton J (2007) Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A brief overview of the evidence. DEFRA (discussion paper).
No Liz O’Brien
Sempik J, Aldridge J, Becker S (2003) Social and therapeutic horticulture: Evidence and Messages from Research. University of Loughborough.
Yes Bowler et al 2009
Van den Berg A (2005). Health impacts of healing environments: A review of the benefits of nature, daylight, fresh air and quiet in healthcare settings. Groningen, Foundation 200 years University Hospital Groningen.
Yes Bowler et al 2009
17
To supplement these literature reviews, 13 experts were contacted in January and February 2011 to ask for references and pointers to relevant material. They were asked in fairly general terms for information on ‘post-2005 empirical studies relevant to children and nature’. The experts contacted are listed in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Experts contacted
Name Institution Referred by
Catherine Andrews Learning through Landscapes Known to reviewer
Dr William Bird Natural England Known to reviewer
Stephen Close Play England Known to reviewer
Anna Kassman-McKerrell Children’s Play Information Service (CPIS) Known to reviewer
Rebecca Lovell Forestry Commission Marcus Sangster, FC
Dr Karen Malone Wollongong University Known to reviewer
Liz O’Brien Forestry Commission Marcus Sangster, FC
Jake Reynolds Sustainable Development Commission Known to reviewer
Marcus Sangster Forestry Commission Paddy Harrop, FC
Prof Chris Spencer Sheffield University Known to reviewer
Sam Thompson New Economics Foundation Known to reviewer
Dr Catharine Ward Thompson OPENspace Known to reviewer
Helen Woolley Sheffield University Known to reviewer
Inclusion criteriaTable 5 below sets out the inclusion and exclusion criteria in more detail. The application of these criteria is not an objective process, and judgements have had to be made. For instance, the distinction between descriptive and empirical research methods is not hard-and-fast. A considered view has been taken, in the light of the reviewer’s expertise in the area. As a result of the search strategy set out above, 71 studies were identified for further analysis.
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Table 5: Inclusion and exclusion criteria (adapted from Bell et al 2008)
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Studies reporting the benefits or outcomes of children’s experiences of nature.
Studies on children’s experience of nature that do not consider benefits or outcomes.
The relevant experiences happened before the age of 12 Studies focusing on experiences after this age
The style of engagement is potentially a regular part of everyday childhood
Studies of residential, remote or wilderness experiences, where children are taken some distance away from their everyday environments
The environment under study is one of the following natural spaces: • Woodlands• Urban green public spaces• Outdoor green domestic spaces • School grounds, including school gardens • ‘Wild areas’ that may be found in or near urban areas
The environment under study is one of the following natural spaces: • Outdoor spaces where there is no mention of nature
or greenness • Remote wilderness areas• Studies focusing on experiences of animals or pets
Studies undertaken in developed countries Studies undertaken in developing countries
Papers reporting primary studies of an evaluative and/or empirical nature (relevant literature reviews were not included, but any studies cited/referenced were considered for inclusion)
Papers not reporting empirical studies, for example, editorials, think-pieces, theoretical and methodological discussion papersTheses and dissertations
Papers published in English Papers published in languages other than English
Papers published (in print or online) in a peer-reviewed journal or scholarly book, or by an authoritative source, including national governments, national public bodies, academic institutions and leading NGOs
Papers published by other sources (including local authorities, private individuals and private companies)
Papers published since 1990 Papers published before 1990
Stage 2: Analysis of relevant studiesIn stage 2, for each of the 71 identified studies, an assessment was made about the quality of the research methods used in each study. This assessment was made using a simplified version of the approach taken in the literature review for Greenspace Scotland carried out by OPENspace (Bell et al 2008). The studies were assessed against the following three questions:• Does the research test for a benefit/outcome,
with clear aims?• Is there a clear justified methodology?• Is there a clear analysis?
Each study was graded ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘unclear’ or ‘poor’ using the following criteria:• Good - positive assessment against all three
questions.• Fair - positive assessment against most of the
questions; no negative assessments.• Unclear - unclear quality in accordance with all
the questions.• Poor – negative assessment against one or
more of the questions.
The results of this assessment are given in Table 6. (Any studies that were cited in a literature review that incorporated inclusion criteria about the quality of the study’s methodology were automatically assessed as ‘good’.)
19
Table 6: Results of assessment of research methods
Grade Number of studies
Good 46
Fair 13
Unclear 2
Poor 10
The 10 studies assessed as poor were excluded from any further analysis. The 61 remaining studies were categorised according to the specific benefit/s that were addressed. The references for these studies are listed in the appendix below. A small proportion of studies (9 in total) addressed more than one benefit; these were included under each relevant benefit category. The typology of benefits used –
set out in Table 7 below - was adapted from that used in Dr Karen Malone’s report Every Experience Matters4.
In addition, each study was also analysed for the following information:• Key findings (usually taken from abstract)• Type/s of environment under study• Style/s of children’s engagement under study• Characteristics of subjects studied (eg
age, socio-economic background, ethnic background)
• Geographical location• Caveats and other comments• Referring source (one source given; note that
many studies were cited by multiple reviews and experts)
Table 7: Typology of benefits (adapted from Malone 2008)
General Outcome Specific Benefit No. of relevant studies
Health Physical activityMental healthHealthy eatingMotor development
161132
Well-being Quality of outdoor playPsychosocial health
21
Cognitive Scientific learningEnvironmental knowledgeLanguage and communication
422
Social Social skills 4
Emotional/behavioural Self-controlSelf-confidenceSelf-awareness
211
Ethical/attitudinal Concern for the environment Connectedness to natureSense of place
1354
Note: the total adds up to more than the total number of studies, because some studies were relevant to more than one benefit.
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Stage 3: Synthesising evidence of benefitsThe 61 studies were gathered together for each specific benefit, and the evidence was synthesised to give an overall assessment of the degree of support for that benefit. Table 8 below sets out how this synthesis was carried out. The results are given in Tables 10 - 12.
Given the heterogeneous nature of the studies, and the fact that, even taken as a whole, they only give a partial picture of the topic, there is limited scope for further analysis that might reveal some of the factors that shape or influence the benefits and outcomes for children. However, one factor was significant enough to warrant further exploration: the style of children’s engagement with nature. This aspect is prominent in the theoretical and discursive literature5.
Therefore, the 61 studies were analysed in one further way. They were reviewed to judge the degree to which the engagement style under study could be described as ‘more playful’ or ‘less playful’. More playful styles included free play, leisure, child-initiated learning (such as in forest school) and freely chosen gardening activities and games, while less playful styles included school gardening programmes, guided walks and field trips. Where both styles were studied, or the nature of the engagement style was unclear, this was also noted. The results (for the most common categories of benefit) are shown in Table 9.
No studies directly compared different styles of engagement. Nonetheless, some patterns emerged that point to the value of more playful engagement styles such as free play, exploration, leisure and child-initiated learning.
Table 8: synthesising the degree of support for each specific benefit
Assessment of level of support Criterion
Well supported by good evidence Two or more studies with positive findings, all assessed as ‘good’ and none with contradictory findings (there may also be other studies of varying quality, and there may also be some studies with neutral or non-significant findings).
Some support from good evidence One study with positive findings, assessed as ‘good’ and none with contradictory findings (there may also be other studies of varying quality, and there may also be some studies with neutral or non-significant findings).
Some support, modest evidence One or more studies with positive findings but none assessed as ‘good’.
Table 9: Studies, outcomes and engagement styles
Outcome ‘More playful’
engagement style
‘Less playful’
engagement style
Both, or unclear
engagement style
Physical activity 15 1 0
Concern for the environment 8 3 2
Mental health 7 1 2
Connected to nature 3 0 2
Scientific knowledge 0 4 0
Social skills 2 1 1
Sense of place 3 1 0
Total 38 11 7
21
For both health outcomes and feelings about nature, hands-on, playful and less structured engagement styles appear to be more significant than other styles of engagement. For cognitive and educational outcomes, and social, emotional and behavioural outcomes, more structured engagement styles such as school gardening schemes are more significant.
Consequently the main project report Sowing the Seeds: Reconnecting London’s children with nature focuses on the goal of offering children ‘engaging everyday nature experiences’ – defined as experiences that involve repeated visits to the same site and that give children hands-on contact with nature, in which the engagement style is playful or exploratory, rather than didactic or curriculum-oriented.
Limitations of the evidence baseThe evidence base presented here only gives a partial picture of the benefits that might arise from children’s engagement with nature. More longitudinal research, ideally using control groups, would be helpful in further exploring the potential impact of different kinds of intervention. Questions remain to be explored about many other issues, including: • The key qualities of the environment –
landscape qualities, tree and plant cover, biodiversity, ambience, size – and how they influence benefits and outcomes;
• The effect of time spent in natural settings; while evidence points to the value of repeated visits, little is known about how patterns of use over time influence benefits and outcomes;
• The effects and influences of an adult presence (or absence); how benefits and outcomes are shaped by different adults, and different professional approaches;
• How benefits and outcomes vary for different children. While there are grounds for giving greater emphasis to the experiences
of younger children, the way children’s relationship with nature changes with age is under explored, as are factors such as culture, socio-economic group, ability, and gender.
Limitations of the review methodologyThis review differs from a full systematic literature review in several ways. These differences are all a consequence of the limited time and resources available.
No comprehensive trawls of academic databases were carried out, and the references/citations of individual papers and primary studies were not themselves used as sources of other potential studies (unless the papers referenced/cited were literature reviews). There is hence a risk that some relevant studies may not have been identified – especially studies that may have been published too recently to feature in any of the reviews surveyed. This limitation was partially addressed by contacting the experts above, and by drawing on the material on the Children & Nature Network website, which is proactive in publicising relevant material.
Furthermore, no independent checks of the assessments of study quality, categorisations or analyses were undertaken (in a full systematic review, analyses are often cross-checked through the use of two or more reviewers, whose judgements are compared for consistency). However, the review methodology was developed and refined with support from Dr Catharine Ward Thompson, Director, OPENspace, who has substantial experience of conducting and overseeing similar literature reviews.
Finally, the assessments of study quality made in this review fall short of what might be expected in – for instance – a clinical review. For example, no assessment was made of the
the london Climate Change adaptation strategy
validity of any statistical tests used (although it should be noted that for material published in peer reviewed journals, such tests would often form part of the peer review process).
These limitations mean that this review is less rigorous than might be expected in a clinically-oriented literature review, for instance. Nonetheless it stands as the first such review of its topic area that is both transparent and systematic in its approach to searching, categorising, appraising and analysing the empirical evidence base. Research, programme evaluation and practical experience are all likely to be valuable in furthering our understanding of the topic.
23T
able
10:
Ben
efit
s th
at a
re w
ell s
uppo
rted
by
good
evi
denc
eIn
thi
s ta
ble,
the
key
stu
dies
are
tho
se a
sses
sed
as ‘g
ood’
.
Ben
efit
No.
of
rele
vant
st
udie
sK
ey s
tudi
esT
ypes
of
envi
ronm
ents
st
udie
d
Typ
ical
sty
le o
f en
gage
men
tC
hara
cter
isti
cs o
f su
bjec
ts;
othe
r re
mar
ks
Phys
ical
act
ivity
16Be
ll et
al 2
008
De
Vrie
s et
al 2
007
Fjor
toft
200
4H
ume
et a
l 200
5Lo
vell
2009
Myg
ind
2007
Ozd
emir
and
Yilm
az 2
008
Potw
arka
et
al 2
008
Roe
mm
ich
et a
l 200
6R
oem
mic
h et
al 2
007
Scho
lz a
nd K
rom
bhol
z 20
07Ti
mpe
rio e
t al
200
4
Gre
en o
utdo
or s
pace
; w
oodl
and
sett
ings
; sc
hool
gro
unds
; ur
ban
gree
n pu
blic
sp
ace
Fore
st s
choo
l; pl
ay; c
onse
rvat
ion
activ
ities
Larg
er s
tudi
es a
nd u
rban
gre
en
spac
e st
udie
s ar
e no
t fr
om U
K.
Hum
e et
al 2
005
and
Potw
arka
et
al 2
008
have
mix
ed f
indi
ngs.
Conc
ern
for t
he
envi
ronm
ent
13Ch
awla
199
9Ew
ert
et a
l 200
5K
als
et a
l 199
9Lo
hr a
nd P
ears
on-M
ims
2002
Palm
er a
nd S
ugga
te 1
996
Palm
er e
t al
199
8Sk
elly
and
Zaj
icek
199
8W
alic
zek
and
Zajic
ek 1
999
Wel
ls a
nd L
ekie
s 20
06
Nat
ural
env
ironm
ents
re
gula
rly v
isite
d;
dom
estic
out
door
sp
aces
; sch
ool
gard
ens
Play
; lei
sure
; ga
rden
ing
3 st
udie
s fr
om U
K; M
ost
stud
ies
are
base
d on
dat
a fr
om a
dults
Men
tal h
ealth
11Fa
ber T
aylo
r and
Kuo
200
9Fa
ber T
aylo
r et
al 2
001
Fabe
r Tay
lor e
t al
200
2K
orpe
la e
t al
200
2K
uo a
nd F
aber
Tay
lor 2
004
Mår
tens
son
et a
l 200
9R
oe 2
009
Wel
ls a
nd E
vans
200
3
Woo
dlan
d si
tes;
ur
ban
gree
n pu
blic
sp
ace;
dom
estic
ou
tdoo
r spa
ce;
natu
ral s
ettin
gs;
scho
ol g
roun
ds
Play
; gui
ded
wal
k;
view
fro
m h
ome;
Fo
rest
sch
ool
Onl
y on
e U
K s
tudy
– m
ost
from
U
S. K
orpe
la e
t al
has
neu
tral
fin
ding
s
Conn
ecte
d to
nat
ure
5Be
ll 20
05Bi
xler
et
al 2
002
Lohr
and
Pea
rson
-Mim
s 20
02Lo
hr a
nd P
ears
on-M
ims
2004
War
d Th
omps
on e
t al
200
8
Woo
dlan
d si
tes;
wild
en
viro
nmen
tsV
isits
; pla
yTw
o U
K s
tudi
es; s
ome
stud
ies
are
base
d on
dat
a fr
om a
dults
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Tab
le 1
0 (c
onti
nued
): B
enef
its
that
are
wel
l sup
port
ed b
y go
od e
vide
nce
In t
his
tabl
e, t
he k
ey s
tudi
es a
re t
hose
ass
esse
d as
‘goo
d’.
Ben
efit
No.
of
rele
vant
st
udie
sK
ey s
tudi
esT
ypes
of
envi
ronm
ents
st
udie
d
Typ
ical
sty
le o
f en
gage
men
tC
hara
cter
isti
cs o
f su
bjec
ts;
othe
r re
mar
ks
Scie
ntifi
c le
arni
ng4
Dirk
s an
d O
rvis
200
5K
lem
mer
, et
al 2
005
Smith
and
Mot
senb
ocke
r 200
5
Scho
ol g
arde
nsCu
rric
ulum
gar
deni
ng
sche
mes
No
UK
stu
dies
; all
stud
ies
focu
s on
sim
ilar i
nter
vent
ions
Sens
e of
pla
ce4
Bliz
ard
and
Schu
ster
200
7M
in a
nd L
ee 2
006
Woo
dlan
d si
tes;
ur
ban
gree
n pu
blic
sp
ace
Fore
st s
choo
l; pl
ay;
field
trip
; sto
ryte
lling
Key
stu
dies
not
fro
m U
K
Hea
lthy
eatin
g3
Line
berg
er a
nd Z
ajic
ek 2
000
Mor
ris a
nd Z
iden
berg
-Che
rr 2
002
Mor
ris e
t al
200
1
Scho
ol g
arde
nsCu
rric
ulum
gar
deni
ng
sche
mes
No
UK
stu
dies
; all
stud
ies
focu
s on
sim
ilar i
nter
vent
ions
Envi
ronm
enta
l kn
owle
dge
2M
ilton
et
al 1
995
Pilg
rim e
t al
200
7R
ural
are
as;
neig
hbou
rhoo
d pa
rkG
ames
and
fie
ld
stud
ies
proj
ects
One
UK
stu
dy
Mot
or d
evel
opm
ent
2Fj
orto
ft 2
004
Scho
lz a
nd K
rom
bhol
z 20
07Pr
e-sc
hool
gro
unds
Play
No
UK
stu
dies
. Bot
h st
udie
s lo
oked
at
pre-
scho
ol c
hild
ren
Tab
le 1
1: B
enef
its
whe
re t
here
is s
ome
supp
ort
from
goo
d ev
iden
ceIn
thi
s ta
ble,
the
key
stu
dies
are
tho
se a
sses
sed
as ‘g
ood’
.
Ben
efit
No.
of
rele
vant
st
udie
sK
ey s
tudi
esT
ypes
of
envi
ronm
ents
st
udie
d
Typ
ical
sty
le o
f en
gage
men
tC
hara
cter
isti
cs o
f su
bjec
ts;
othe
r re
mar
ks
Soci
al s
kills
4R
obin
son
and
Zajic
ek 2
005
Wal
icze
k et
al 2
001
Woo
dlan
d si
tes;
sc
hool
gar
dens
Fore
st s
choo
l; sc
hool
ga
rden
ing
Two
UK
stu
dies
. Wal
icze
k et
al
2001
has
neu
tral
fin
ding
s.
Qua
lity
of o
utdo
or
play
2Fa
ber T
aylo
r et
al 1
998
Urb
an g
reen
pub
lic
spac
e; s
choo
l gr
ound
s
Play
Var
ied
loca
tions
, non
e in
UK
. V
ario
us a
ges
Self-
cont
rol
2R
oe 2
009
Woo
dlan
d si
tes;
sc
hool
far
ms
Fore
st s
choo
l; sc
hool
ga
rden
ing
Two
UK
stu
dies
Self-
awar
enes
s1
Rob
inso
n an
d Za
jicek
200
5Sc
hool
gar
dens
Scho
ol g
arde
ning
US
stud
y; 5
– 8
yea
r old
s
25T
able
12:
Ben
efit
s w
here
the
re is
som
e su
ppor
t, b
ut m
odes
t ev
iden
ceIn
thi
s ta
ble,
the
key
stu
dies
are
tho
se a
sses
sed
as ‘f
air’.
Ben
efit
No.
of
rele
vant
st
udie
sK
ey s
tudi
esT
ypes
of
envi
ronm
ents
st
udie
d
Typ
ical
sty
le o
f en
gage
men
tC
hara
cter
isti
cs o
f su
bjec
ts;
othe
r re
mar
ks
Lang
uage
and
co
mm
unic
atio
n2
Dav
is a
nd W
aite
200
5O
’Brie
n an
d M
urra
y 20
07W
oodl
and
site
sFo
rest
sch
ool
Two
UK
stu
dies
; sm
all s
ampl
e; n
ot
urba
n co
ntex
t
Self-
conf
iden
ce1
O’B
rien
and
Mur
ray
2007
Woo
dlan
d si
tes
Fore
st s
choo
l2
UK
stu
dies
; sm
all s
ampl
e; n
ot
urba
n co
ntex
t
Psyc
hoso
cial
hea
lth1
Briti
sh T
rust
for
Con
serv
atio
n V
olun
teer
s 20
09Sc
hool
gro
unds
and
ne
arby
ope
n sp
aces
Cons
erva
tion
activ
ities
Child
ren
aged
7 -
11
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
Rachel Keeling Nursery, Tower Hamlets © Ben Hasan
27
appendix
referenCesfor the sixty one studies analysed
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
A Bell J, Wilson J and Liu G (2008) ‘Neighborhood Greenness and 2-Year Changes in Body Mass Index of Children and Youth’. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 35 (6) pp. 547–553.
Bell S (2005) ‘Nature for people: The importance of Green Spaces to East Midlands Communities’ in Ingo Kowarik, Stefan Körner (eds) Wild urban woodlands: New perspectives for urban forestry pp. 81 – 94.
Bixler R, Floyd M and Hammitt W (2002) ‘Environmental Socialization: Quantitative Tests of the Childhood Play Hypothesis’. Environment and Behavior 34 (6) pp. 795-818.
Blizard C and Schuster R (2007) ‘Fostering Children’s Connections to Natural Places through Cultural and Natural History Storytelling’. Children, Youth and Environments 17 (4) pp. 171-206.
British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (2009) School Green Gym evaluation findings: Health and social outcomes, British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.
Chawla L (1999) ‘Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action’. Journal of Environmental Education 1 pp. 15-26.
Davis B and Waite S (2005) Forest School: Opportunities and Challenges in Early Years, University of Plymouth.
de Vries S et al (2007) ‘Determinants of activity-friendly neighborhoods for children: Results from the SPACE study’. American Journal of Health Promotion 21 (4) pp. 312-316.
Dirks A and Orvis K (2005) ‘An evaluation of the junior master gardener program in third grade classrooms’. HortTechnology 15 pp. 443-447.
Dyment J and Bell A (2008) ‘Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity’. Health Education Research 23 (6) pp. 952–962.
Dyment J, Bell A and Lucas A (2009) ‘The relationship between school ground design and intensity of physical activity’. Children’s Geographies 7 (3) pp. 261-276.
Ewert A, Place G and Sibthorp J (2005) ‘Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitudes’. Leisure Sciences 27 pp. 225-239.
Faber Taylor A and Kuo F (2009) ‘Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate Better After Walk in the Park’. Journal of Attention Disorders 12 (5) pp. 402-409.
Faber Taylor A, Kuo F and Sullivan W (2002) ‘Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22 pp. 49-63.
Faber Taylor A, Kuo F and Sullivan W (2001) ‘Coping With ADD: The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings’. Environment and Behavior 33 (1) pp. 54-77.
Faber Taylor A et al (1998) ‘Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow’. Environment and Behavior 30 (1) pp. 3-27.
Fjortoft I (2004) ‘Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development’. Children, Youth and Environments 14 (2) pp. 21-44.
Furihata S et al (2007) ‘Potentials and Challenges of Research on ‘Significant Life Experiences’ in Japan’. Children, Youth and Environments 17 (4) pp. 207-226.
29
Hume et al (2005) ‘Children’s perceptions of their home and neighborhood environments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantitative study’. Health Education Research 20 (1) pp. 1–13.
Kals E, Schumacher D and Montada L (1999) ‘Emotional affinity towards nature as a motivational basis to protect nature’. Environment and Behavior 31 (2) pp. 178-203.
Klemmer C, Waliczek I and Zajicek J (2005) ‘The effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students’. HortTechnology 15 pp. 448-552.
Knapp D and Barrie E (2001) ‘Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip’. Journal of Science Education & Technology 10 (4) pp. 351–7.
Knapp D and Poff R (2001) ‘A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretive program’. Environmental Education Research 7 (1) pp. 55–65.
Korpela K, Kytta M and Hartig T (2002) ‘Restorative Experience, Self-regulation, and Children’s Place Preferences’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22 pp. 387-398.
Kuo F and Faber Taylor A (2004) ‘A Potential Natural Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence From a National Study’. American Journal of Public Health 94 (9) pp. 1580–1586.
Lineberger S, and Zajicek J (2000) ‘School gardens: Can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding fruits and vegetables?’ HortTechnology 10 pp. 593-597.
Lohr V and Pearson-Mims C (2002) ‘Childhood contact with nature influences adult attitudes and actions toward trees and gardening’ in C.A. Shoemaker (Ed) Interaction by design: Bringing people and plants together for health and well-being: An international symposium, pp. 267-277. Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa.
Lohr, V and Pearson-Mims C (2004) ‘The relative influence of childhood activities and demographics on adult appreciation for the role of trees in human well-being’. Acta Horticulturae 639 pp. 253-259.
Lovell R (2009) Physical activity at Forest School, Forestry Commission.
Mabie R and Baker M (1996) ‘A comparison of experiential instructional strategies upon the science process skills of urban elementary students’. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37 (2) pp. 1–7.
Maller C and Townsend M (2006) ‘Children’s mental health and wellbeing and hands-on contact with nature’. International Journal of Learning 12 pp. 359-372.
Mårtensson F et al (2009) ‘Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children’. Health & Place 15 (4) pp. 1149-1157.
Milton B, Cleveland E and Bennett-Gates D (1995) ‘Changing perceptions of nature, self, and others: A report on a Park/School Program’. Journal of Environmental Education 26 (3) pp. 32–9.
Min B and Lee J (2006) ‘Children’s neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain’. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 pp. 51-71.
sowing the seeds: reConneCting london’s Children with nature
Morris J and Zidenberg-Cherr S (2002) ‘Garden-enhanced nutrition education curriculum improves fourth-grade school children’s knowledge of nutrition and preferences for some vegetables’. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 102 (1) pp. 91-93.
Morris J, Netistadcer A and Zidenberg-Cherr S (2001) ‘First-grade gardeners more likely to taste vegetables’. California Agriculture, 55 (1) pp. 43-46.
Mygind E (2007) ‘A comparison between children’s physical activity levels at school and learning in an outdoor environment’. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 7 (2) pp. 161-176.
O’Brien L and Murray R (2007) ‘Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6 pp. 249–265.
Ozdemir A, and Yilmaz O (2008) ‘Assessment of outdoor school environments and physical activity in Ankara’s primary schools’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (3) pp. 287-300.
Palmer J and Suggate J (1996) ‘Influences and experiences affecting the proenvironmental behaviour of educators’. Environmental Education Research 2 (1) pp. 109–121.
Palmer J et al (1998) ‘Significant influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Slovenia and Greece’. Environmental Education Research, 4 (4) pp. 429–444.
Palmer J et al (1999) ‘Significant life experiences and formative influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada’. Environmental Education Research, 5 (2) pp. 181–200.
Pilgrim S, Smith D and Pretty J (2007) ‘A Cross-regional Assessment of the Factors Affecting Ecoliteracy: Implications for policy and practice’. Ecological Applications, 17 (6) pp. 1742–1751.
Potwarka L, Kaczynski A and Flack A (2008) ‘Places to play: Association of park space and facilities with healthy weight status among children. Journal of Community Health 33 (5) pp. 344-50.
Robinson C and Zajicek J (2005) ‘Growing minds: The effects of a one-year school garden program on six constructs of life skills of elementary school children.’ HortTechnology 15 pp. 453-457.
Roe J (2009) Forest school and restorative health benefits in young people with varying emotional health, Forestry Commission.
Roe J and Aspinall P (2011) ‘The Emotional Affordances of Forest Settings: An Investigation in Boys with Extreme Behavioural Problems’. Landscape Research DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2010.543670
Roemmich J, Epstein L and Raja S (2007) ‘The neighborhood and home environments: Disparate relationships with physical activity and sedentary behaviors in youth’. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 33 (1) pp. 29–38.
Roemmich J et al (2006) ‘Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children’. Preventive Medicine 43 pp. 437-441.
Samborski S (2010) ‘Biodiverse or Barren School Grounds: Their Effects on Children’. Children, Youth and Environments 20 (2) pp. 67-115.
Scholz U and Krombholz H (2007) ‘A study of the physical performance ability of children
31
from wood kindergartens and from regular kindergartens’. Motorik 1 pp. 17-22.
Sebba R (1991) ‘The landscapes of childhood. The reflection of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in the children’s attitudes’. Environment and Behavior 23 (4) pp. 395-422.
Skelly S and Zajicek J (1998) ‘The effect of an interdisciplinary garden program on the environmental attitudes of elementary school students’. HortTechnology 8 (4) pp. 579-583.
Smith L and Motsenbocker C (2005) ‘Impact of hands-on science through school gardening in Louisiana public elementary schools’. HortTechnology 15 pp. 439-443.
Timperio A et al (2004) ‘Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children’. Preventative Medicine 38 (1) pp. 39-47.
Waliczek T and Zajicek J (1999) ‘School gardening: Improving environmental attitudes of children through hands-on learning’. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 17 pp. 180-184.
Waliczek T, Bradley R and Zajicek J (2001) ‘The effect of school gardens on children’s interpersonal relationships and attitudes toward school’. HortTechnology 11 pp. 466-468.
Ward Thompson C et al (2008) ‘The Childhood Factor: Adult Visits to Green Places and the Significance of Childhood Experience’. Environment and Behavior 40 (1) pp. 111-143.
Wells N (2000) ‘At home with nature: Effects of “Greenness” on Children’s Cognitive Functioning’. Environment and Behavior 32 (6) 775-795.
Wells N and Evans G (2003) ‘Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children’. Environment and Behavior 35 (3) pp. 311-330.
Wells N and Lekies S (2006) ‘Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism’. Children, Youth and Environments 16 (1) pp. 1-24.
Children and nature: a quasi-systematiC review of the empiriCal evidenCe
endnotes
1 Louv R (2005) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder contains a helpful overview of claims
2 Bixler R et al (1994) ‘Observed fears and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas.’ Journal of Environmental Education. 26 (1), pp. 24-33
3 www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/networks/professional/gsr/resources/rea-how-to-do-an-rea.aspx
4 Malone, K. (2008) Every Experience Matters: An evidence based research report on the role of learning outside the classroom for children’s whole development from birth to eighteen years. Farming & Countryside Education.
5 See Louv R (2005) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder
Other formats and languagesFor a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison UnitGreater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.ukMore London London SE1 2AA
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese Hindi
Vietnamese Bengali
Greek Urdu
Turkish Arabic
Punjabi Gujarati
Top Related